The Real Meaning Behind Jesus Sacrifice.

If Jesus and God are one and the same. If this god created the Universe and all within it. All knowing to everything to come.

Isn't it ultimately just god sacrificing himself to himself for the sin he himself created?

I don't think "God" is so simple that we can
explain it with a few words or a single sentence.
Same thing goes, I think, with the "universe".
A situation exists in the universe currently that facilitates bad things happening constantly and on a huge scale.
I don't think that it is God's fault, but something that was unavoidable in the action of creating a universe, with there not being another way of
bringing one about.
God offered His son to us, not to Himself, so that we know that He loves us.

In the literal concepts I think he volunteered to help assist freeing the minds of many people trapped by lower mind and dark side karmic beliefs, and
to show all their (the PTB) contracts to the dark side and over citizens were null and void.

However there is a symbolic metaphoric meaning to the bible, so not really sure about this idea at all.

There are 3 related articles that step into the metaphors in the text:

The flesh is a symbol for the passions and desires of the lower mental-emotional nature in man. The physical body itself is simply a temple that has
the potential to express both the lower and higher nature of man. The higher intellect of man is supposed to rule the passions and desires of
man.....

Out of Egypt...

Egypt: …Egypt is a symbol of the lower mental plane with its knowledge of the things of the world, and the objects of desire.

As you can see, Egypt is the realm of the egoic lower nature. Based on the above definition, Jesus had to flee into Egypt so he could come out of
Egypt since he represents the evolving soul. Jesus’ going into and then subsequently coming out of Egypt is pattern that is established with all the
giants of scripture.

Next I want you to notice that Jesus only took the famous three, Peter, James and John. These three are the obvious choice for what they
represent. They are archetypes for the human soul. Peter, who comes first in the list, represents the natural man. Think of him as the lower mind, or
ego. This can be proven from scripture because Jesus rebuked by calling him Satan.

“…get thee behind me, Satan: for thou art an offence to me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Matt.
16:23).

Natural man, or ego, is always at enmity with God....

It should make sense to you now that Jesus goes through the transfiguration with the three disciples present who ultimately represent the body, mind,
and heart, all of three of which need to go through a change by reflecting the truth of the higher nature. More on this change in a moment.

The last portion of the scripture we studied said Jesus took them up on a high mountain apart. High mountain tops in scripture also always represent
the higher planes. As we’ll see, Jesus’ transfiguration represents a reflection of the bright white of truth on the higher planes. The fact that
the scripture states it is apart means in isolation, which represents going within one’s self. It is the “kingdom within” that Jesus speaks
of....

“And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the son of man be risen again from the
dead.”

The esoteric nature of this verse is subtle, but important. Why would Jesus forbid them to tell any man about the vision until after his resurrection?
Esoterically, it is because the son of man has not yet become fully the son of God. The perfection of the lower nature is fully shown in its death at
the crucifixion and resurrection. This is not meant to be literal, but is figurative of the completed process of the evolution the soul.

“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the Ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom…”

The veil is symbolic of the separation between the lower and the higher self. The temple in the verse above has nothing to do with a building. It’s
the temple of the individual body. This is where the renting of the veil takes place. I have already discussed how Jesus’ death represents attaining
the spiritual perfection of his personality by dropping away the lower self to achieve a union with his higher self. The ripping of the veil
symbolizes this union.

It can also be said that there is no atonement for the lower self until all identification with the natural man has been severed in order for higher
consciousness to be achieved. That is atonement. Remember Jacob’s ladder which is about the process of involution and evolution. The higher self
lays down life in order to incarnate (involution), and then takes it up again after the ego has been crucified (evolution). It puts a whole new
meaning on the crucifixion and resurrection, doesn’t it?

All I was saying is that the way Jesus was said to have died really isn't very shocking.

It should be "shocking" to us today,
looking back at it with what we know now.
We should be horrified that the best man who ever lived was killed as a criminal, and that his killers and their supporters basically had a party
while he was death, thinking that they now could go on being worshiped as the keepers of godliness and morality without any annoying itinerant
do-gooders saying otherwise.

edit on 7-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Many people have been accused of ridiculous "crimes" and convicted or even executed because of it. Once again, not something new. Happened before
Jesus was said to have lived, and even still today. So no, in that sense it's just another case for the files. Just another act of extreme human
behavior.

And how exactly would Jesus be the best man that ever lived? His image may have been influential, but claiming him to be the greatest person ever
would be very opinionated.

And you do realize that Christianity has also punished people much like Jesus. Jesus was accused of blasphemy if memory serves me correctly, when he
was first getting into hot water. And all blasphemy would be, is doing or saying things that are too wild and crazy. So his "crime" in their eyes
was that he was going around pretty much spreading misinformation. Though in reality, they viewed him as a threat, and wanted him silenced. That is of
course if this event did in fact even take place.

And this is not something uncommon within the Christian faith. The Roman Catholic Church started combating heresy and other practices in order to keep
their own power and practices into place. A lot of these people were killed or tortured only on suspicion. And you have other instances such as the
Salem witch trials, which is a little more modern, and were motivated by certain denominations within the Christian faith. Even men of science such as
Galileo were being pushed around because his theories about our planets position in the solar system, which came out to be true by the way. And you
can find other instances similar Christianity has carried out. Oh, before I forget, people also cheered on these acts also. They believed these people
were demons or Satan-spawned, therefore, it would be their god-given mission to destroy them. Do you see the double standard emerging?

Christianity has been guilty of the very same thing your jumping up and down about the Romans. And two negatives only make a positive within
mathematics. Christianity also has blood on it's hands that will never go away. Your whole post was lathered with irony.

And you do realize that Christianity has also punished people much like Jesus.

I think that you are being confused by labels.
Real Christianity would be these people you are referring to who are being "punished", and the usurpers of that name are like the religious
institution that killed Jesus, who are only "religious" in name.

Christianity has been guilty of the very same thing your jumping up and down
about the Romans.

If you are going to use such language, could you at least give me the benefit of quoting where I was doing such a
thing?

And you do realize that Christianity has also punished people much like Jesus.

I think that you are being confused by labels.
Real Christianity would be these people you are referring to who are being "punished", and the usurpers of that name are like the religious
institution that killed Jesus, who are only "religious" in name.

Christianity has been guilty of the very same thing your jumping up and down
about the Romans.

If you are going to use such language, could you at least give me the benefit of quoting where I was doing such a
thing?

edit on 7-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Well, the people who killed Jesus were not Christians. Christianity was still a very long way away from becoming popular. So there wasn't some kind
of "good" Christians against "bad" Christians. At least not when it came to Jesus' death. The surrounding area was still very much pagan and
polytheistic.

And yes I brought up the Romans because they were the ones who executed Jesus (supposedly.) Crucifixion was a common roman capital punishment
sentence. And was usually viewed as a more disgraceful way of dying. So there wasn't some kind of Christian turf war going on.

I believe that somehow you have missed the
point of everything I have written.

People only calling themselves Christian despite not acting in any way like Jesus, do not factor into the equation of the world becoming better as an
influence of real godliness through the true believers who are connected spiritually with Jesus and God.

The people who caused Jesus to be executed were the priesthood of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.

A so-called religious institution calling itself "Catholic" and behaving similarly to the people who had caused Jesus' execution is no better than
that former institution and is no closer to representing what real Christianity is.

Originally posted by VoiceinTheWilderness
The analogy you gave above is unbiblical.

Isaiah 53:10 - “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him...”

God ordained it.

www.gty.org...

The books of Isaiah are not considered by scholars, to have all been written by the prophet Isaiah himself.

Only the books 1 to 39, are considered to be written by Isaiah.

LT Writing of the book extends over a period of 200 or more years. Chapters 1 to 39 were written about 700 to 750 BCE, at the time of Isaiah. They
relate to the Syro-Ephraimitic War (circa 733 BCE) and the invasion of Judah by the Assyrian army in 701 BCE. Chapters 40 to 55 were composed in
the 6th century BCE, probably by an unknown Jewish exile in Babalonia, often referred to as 2nd Isaiah or Deutero Isaiah.

Isaiah 40 to 55, is considered the be the work of an anonymous author…

I think the Scholars are correct, and that Isaiah never wrote Isaiah 53, but I also think it’s highly unlikely, because of the following
reason…

Isaiah 1:11-13
11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the LORD.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!

In his verse above, Isaiah is clearly against sacrifices and offerings. So whoever wrote Isaiah 53, believing Jesus was a sin offering sacrifice,
doesn’t sound like Isaiah to me.

Whoever wrote Isaiah 53, believed in the Old Testament traditions, of God requiring sacrifices. And in turn those beliefs were inferred (wrongly IMO),
onto Jesus death by crucifixion.

There are also many other verses, in the Old Testament, which show that God doesn’t require sacrifices…

Here’s just one example…

Proverb 21:2-3
2 All a man’s ways seem right to him,
but the LORD weighs the heart.
3 To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

And not only that, Jesus himself! is against any kind of sacrifice as well…

Matthew 12:7
7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice you would not have condemned the innocent.

And…

Mark 12:32-33
32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your
heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings
and sacrifices.”

You can only, love him, with all your heart, and with all your understanding, by coming to know God; which can only be done through Jesus! message,
and NOT through sacrifices.

The Real Meaning Behind Jesus Sacrifice. Matthew 20:28:
"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." In the above verse, Jesus says, “He
gives his life as a Ransom for many”, but what is left open to interpretation, is the manner, in which Jesus gives his life for many.

Joe, wouldnt you have to as well consider the lamentations he himself made while hanging out to dry on the clothesline/crucifix? He gives his life
fully knowing what he was doing and why (I dont think he was privy to the future resulting expressions of different varieties of forms Christianity
this would jumpstart the variety of Christian based faiths whether Roscicrusion or FLDS. Someone correct me here; one of the lamentations was "Zama
Zama Il Zabacanaci" meaning 'My wounds will remain/be kept open by those that defame' (Aramaic?). This is a tough one for me as it really doesnt say
anything but a warning to those that do not believe in his sacrifice; and seems out of character, but totally valid if he became angry with the
Demi-gods he may have felt used him. I thought it was all about the 'kingdom' existing beyond this one which is not as physical as we percieve it from
this dimension (an ant trying to understand the human foot; yet just as valid in existance (more freedom there to create better flatscreens out of
thin air BTW).

Isaiah was regarded as a great prophet, so it adds more weight to the prophecy, if He supposedly wrote Isaiah 53. Which doesn’t appear to be the
case…IMO

And it looks extremely suspect, that those prophetic verses, attributed to Isaiah, are being used to promote the blood sacrifice theology. When they
are most likely, not even written by Isaiah himself.

The other problem IMO is that many prophets, tended to believe in the past traditions of men. Which means errors and mistakes about Gods character,
were compounded, down through the ages. Even though they had a genuine beliefs etc…

Well, the people who killed Jesus were not Christians. Christianity was still a very long way away from becoming popular. So there wasn't some
kind of "good" Christians against "bad" Christians. At least not when it came to Jesus' death. The surrounding area was still very much pagan and
polytheistic.
And yes I brought up the Romans because they were the ones who executed Jesus (supposedly.) Crucifixion was a common roman capital punishment
sentence. And was usually viewed as a more disgraceful way of dying. So there wasn't some kind of Christian turf war going on.

They certainly were not Christians, as they were as you say Polytheistic Romans (Pilot) and Hebrew Pharasee Priests in collusion with Herod (threw his
hands up in the air then hid under the blanket covers with Salome for the 2 days of trial). Barabas as a thief in comparison with a wandering
'seerer/gnostic' within these times should have been publically drawn and quartered. What was Jesus's threat exactly (oh he did not like materialism);
and died for it? Something amiss at the start; which brings up OPs question as to why the sacrifice had to happen in the first place? Martredom of
course. Why is this important; to attract attention to a 'significant being' with an important message. Did Jesus know or acknowledge himself as the
Hebrew Messiah (even though he rode into Jeruselem on a white ass and fullfilled many of the prophecies; these may all have been coincidental); or was
this a blatent attempt to force a hand; and you know where Im going with this and it starts with the lies regarding the Egyptians and Moses.

What you are quoting is itself an analogy.
It is explaining what happened to Israel at the hands of the Assyrians and the Babylonians.
The upper classes including the royals and the high priesthood were taken captive.
Meanwhile Israel and Judah are no longer existent as states.
The promise is that they will be released from captivity and reestablish Israel and the temple.

It isn't a prophecy about Jesus, though the New Testament writers make use of this prophecy to explain a similar situation in an allegorical way to
what happened to Jesus.

What comes through the Isaiah prophecy is that the elite class taken off to Babylon felt that they were righteous but suffered for the people in
general who were to blame for not properly supporting the Jerusalem temple and using alternative altars on the high places.
So here is a point of connection between how they thought of themselves, and what we think about Jesus, that he was really blameless and those people
who in the Old Testament situation who thought they were.

In his verse above, Isaiah is clearly against sacrifices and offerings. So whoever wrote Isaiah 53, believing Jesus was a sin offering
sacrifice, doesn't sound like Isaiah to me.

Isaiah 1 was talking about sacrificial animals trampling the courtyard of the temple, as if that
would make up for systematic wrongdoing in the kingdom.
I think at this point that was coming or already had come to an end, anyway, by the invading foreign armies laying waste the countryside outside of
the walls of the city.

technomage1
here is my issue with his death...
If he (Jesus Christ) died for all us sinners why is there still sin in the world ?
i am pretty sure we can all agree the world has become worse since his death so what was the point ?

Trick question--you would think it 'automatically' absolves you of all sins. So any sin you commit is vanquished/absolved by Jesus's sacrifice. There
was a great flaw in this thinking pattern and led the human to believe it could do whatever it wanted and be forgiven in forgiveness (ideaform)
automatically. It was meant to originally be a method (sanction) "IF YOU SIN IT COMES BACK TO ME TO FORGIVE" or hold the karma of that evil deed again
"Those that defame me will keep my wounds open" (Christs lament on the cross). In other words he is saying "So, in your generosity please think of me
and do not sin". Backfired as usual--who is driving the 'spirituality OPEN boat'; THE ONE WITH NO OARS or a Sail attached to an invisible mast to
catch wind that does not exist; no one apparently. Jesus trusted all of us and as far as Im concerned; (leadership outstanding) has 'nogoods' as his
sailer mariners (changed up the course to Greece).
It is interesting to me that some scripture is taken so literally, and cannot see the subtle message so apparent (just behave yourselves).

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Nice of him to have a change of heart.

Not so nice for all the men, women, and babies murdered from the global flood.

Let's not focus on the past I guess

I think FlyersFan on that other thread, pretty much showed that there couldn’t have been a world wide flood, and I agree. It was most likely a rural
flood, which men wrongly attribute to God punishing them.

And also, if you remember my first post on that thread, I was highlighting, how Jesus was trying to point out, to his diciples, that rianing fire down
on people, was not of God, even though OT prophets and Jesus diciples believed it was. Funny thing is, in the book of John, it states, no one new God,
(character) until he was revealed through Jesus, or words to that effect.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I have a question. Might not be best aimed at you since it seemed in your post you were making a distinction between Jesus and God. To those that
don't:

If Jesus and God are one and the same. If this god created the Universe and all within it. All knowing to everything to come.

Isn't it ultimately just god sacrificing himself to himself for the sin he himself created?

Good question, and your right, it is in a sense “God sacrificing himself to himself”, if the thelogy of the Blood sacrifice is correct.

But my OP is suggesting, that the blood sacrifice, are as you put it, “God sacrificing himslelf to himself”, is just plain wrong, on so many
levels… See my reply to VoiceinTheWilderness…

Where as God, who is Spirit, coming down to speak to us, through Jesus, to help bring people closer to God, knowing he would be killed in the process,
yet coming here anyway, makes a LOT more sense, and is clearly the actions, of what a loving God would do.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Joecroft I do have a question for you actually. Let's say your interpretation of Christ's sacrifice is best in the sense of being most accurate. It
would be prudent for others to view it this way since salvation depends on it.

Yet I believe the orthodox understanding of the sacrificial meaning is different. That's a big weight to carry for you knowing so many fellow
Christians are potentially walking the wrong path. Here is my question. Shouldn't that weight be on god?

Well, I believe people are really finding salvation already, through Jesus message, even though most predominately believe that it’s his death that
saves.

But when I say salvation, I mean it in a different way, than in the standard Christian sense of the word i.e. avoiding Hell and destruction
etc…because I believe God judges people fairly. And becasue God judgeds fairly, he tries to help people to walk a rightoues path, in this life.

Of course, this latter point is my own personal view, so even if people don’t accept that view, and want to continue believing in the standard view
of Hell, then that’s up to them; My OP, is just an important piece of the jigsaw puzzle, for people trying to find the truth…

Imagine it from Gods perspective. He sees people coming to believe in His message, and yet at the same time, He sees them believing in all kinds of
other stuff, which just aren’t true i.e. Doctrines and handed down traditions which became interwoven into standard christianty etc... God will
honor them for the truth they’ve found, even though they’re believing in other stuff, which just isn’t true. Of course, men still have to try to
iron out, the lies from the truth, which is an ongoing journey.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
If as you say god seeks this relationship. Wants to give salvation. Most importantly, using your words, wants to teach us! Why is it an all-knowing,
all-powerful, all-loving being hasn't come again to steer us back on track.

Clarify the ambiguity that obviously exists within Christendom on scriptural interpretation [30,000+ Christian denominations]! Why doesn't he tonight?
And tomorrow.

And the next day. Again… all powerful, all present, all knowing. The capability is there. The motive is there as well. So why the complete absence?
It doesn't at all appear to me as a teacher that wants to teach. Looks like a retired teacher enjoying retirement.

Again, good questions. God will never force his way into a persons life, it really has to begin with an internal search IMO. Aslo Jesus teaches, that
those who come to believe in him, will receive the Holy Spirit, so according to Jesus teachings, God hasn’t left us alone, at all. This is one the
key major reasons, why I see Jesus message, as being more important than his death.

In my view, God is pouring out his Spirit, onto believers, regardless of the incorrect doctrines, they are coming to believe in; because ultimately,
they are, in reality, all coming to know Gods real truths, through Jesus message. Which IMO, is what God considers to be the most important thing,
above all else, even if men don’t realise it.

In his verse above, Isaiah is clearly against sacrifices and offerings. So whoever wrote Isaiah 53, believing Jesus was a sin offering
sacrifice, doesn't sound like Isaiah to me.

Isaiah 1 was talking about sacrificial animals trampling the courtyard of the temple, as if that
would make up for systematic wrongdoing in the kingdom.
I think at this point that was coming or already had come to an end, anyway, by the invading foreign armies laying waste the countryside outside of
the walls of the city.

Sacrificial animals were an obligation by local constituants living in the region; how else would the Roman Army be fed? under the temples; there were
full on butchershops (you didnt think they wasted those goats and sheeps) even if not Kosher; blessed/fed in the right manner (certain grains in a
sanitary area). One of the reasons the populace was persecuted was because they werent doing proper timely offerings of livestock provision. Pharasee
got a break here as they were in charge of the butchering and distribution (good thing, not Smithfield hams/maybe Tyson Chicken).

You are thinking of a more recent time period.
Isaiah 1 is talking about things that were going on five or six hundred years earlier.

Why would the time period of Isaiah (stuck in historical rememberance) not mimick others in future time; or overlays/formats as a grand IDEA;
transparent thoughts that were brought forth FORWARD as (ideaforms) into possible future times to incarnate. You are not wrong at all; my supposition
is that all is planned and formated (to reach a positive result; and that being the progression of a SYSTEM). Why the caring of an indistinct history
(because rote form can be effective; tell them once, tell them twice third is the charm).

When I have time I'll create a new thread to respond to your post above (God willing). In the meantime, I have the same question that I asked
earlier:

1) What is the Gospel?
2) According to the teaching of the Bible, who is Jesus the Christ?

Keep in mind that you don't have to believe any of this but we have to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). You have taken the
scriptures out of context above but this is understandable because only the Jesus of the Bible can open the mind to understand. This is why I always
start with Him. If people get it wrong on His Identity/Person then their interpretations of the scriptures are skewed.

While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" (Matthew 17:5)

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His
Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;" (Hebrews 1:1-2)

Why would the time period of Isaiah (stuck in historical rememberance) not mimick others in future time;

First of all, that would
not be the proper use of the word mimic, since the definition means adapting to appear like something that already exists.
Isaiah was originally about the future of Israel when it appeared to be dead and gone.
It was fulfilled by the return from Babylonian captivity.
The point that I was making earlier was that God's distaste for Israel's offerings described in Isaiah 1 may have been actually written after there
were no offerings even being made because of the catastrophe already happening which was the reason for the book existing in the first place.
To whoever was reading it and were the intended audience, the point would especially be driven home by the realization of the manifestation of the
consequences of that distaste.
My bigger point is that the author was not diminishing the importance of or God's desire for sacrifices but their lack of ability to make the people
invulnerable to destruction in the face of their perpetuation of wrongdoing in their own midst.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.